His starting point had been a Mercury link [http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/08/27/256621_todays-news.html] to the 27th Aug, and it had prompted his request under FOI to the EPA. The relevant officer, Bobbie O’Brien replied and included a link to a ‘File note – Gunns permits’, written by Alex Schaap after a discussion with Calton Frame (Gunns Ltd). These documents showed that the EPA had received Malcolm’s request on 29th Aug. It would be interesting to know for certain whether the EPA had not sought advice by the time the nominal expiry date (c.30th Aug) had been reached. In any case, according to the ‘File note - Gunns Permit’ which Bobbie had released, by 22nd August Alex Schaap had informed Gunns that he would not seek to clarify substantial commencement unless Gunns asked him to approve or issue things such as “a site plan, permit variation or EPN”.

Two days later, on the 24th of Aug, the Minister for Infrastructure, David O’Byrne, said that “It is out of our hands. The regulator and the independent process has been established and needs to run its course.”[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-24/20110824-pulp-mill-permits-down-to-courts/2853388]

On the same day, the Premier, Lara Giddings is reported as saying: “Tasmanians have not wanted politicians directly making decisions over the Gunns pulp mill. They have said they want an independent process, they don’t want this to be a political issue. So it’s absolutely critical that people understand that these issues around permits are issues for independent statutory bodies within government.” She was stressing a permit process ‘independent of the State Government’: “I don’t have any say over whether or not those permits are continuing whether or not they’re are conditions within the permits which will need addressing. These are issues which are at arms length from government”.

Malcolm of Hobart has in a further T.T. comment, revealed that his FOI letter from Bobbie was by email, on the 16th September. How is is that Mr Schaap was ‘still waiting on advice’ on the 16th, but that this was not disclosed to Malcolm in the O’Brien EPA FOI response? It’s all a bit confusing.

LITTLE DAMS ARE LEGAL?

What a state of affairs. Subsequent to Mr Schaap’s phone conversation with Calton Frame, (of Gunns Ltd), it is said that Gunns contractors had commenced a series of ‘little dams’ which didn’t require a permit because they were less than 1ML in size. And yet it is suggested that they are in the same location as two of the three dams whose permits did unquestionably expire last month. Photographs taken on 16th Sept suggests that these ‘mini dams’ are in fact smaller parts of ‘the whole’. That is, that in two of the pictures that can be seen accompanying this article, twin dams can be seen which seem to share one outer wall, with lesser dividing walls separating them into cells, for want of a better word.

Q&A:

1 The very clear intention of the PMAA 2007 is that the Pulp Mill Permit was to lapse in August 2011 if a substantial commencement of the Project had not occurred by then.

Q Why was Mr Schaap allowing work to subsequently commence in the absence of a Pulp Mill Permit?

2 The very clear intention of the PMAA 2007 is that all LUPAA-related Project permits, taken by the PMAA 2007 to be issued under the LUPAA 1993, were to lapse upon the expiration of the Pulp Mill Permit (which would happen if the Project had not substantially commenced by the expiry date).

Q Was it not incumbent on Mr Schaap, as Director of the EPA, to have informed himself of these matters before the expiry of the Pulp Mill Permit and before the lapsing of the LUPAA-related-permits did actually occur?

3 The very clear intention of the PMAA 2007 is that permits taken to have been issued under the WMA 1999 would expire if substantial completion of the works authorised by those permits (Schedules WM1-4) had not occurred before the end of August 2011.

Q Why did the Director not issue a direction to Gunns to desist from all miscellaneous dam-related earthworks due to the expiration of permits (WM4) which occurred as a result of that company’s failure to substantially complete said works by last month?

It can be seen that Alex Schaap sent/cc’d the ‘File note - Gunns permit’ to 3 Departmental colleagues and also to Brad Arkell, Senior Advisor to Brian Wightman (the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage). Publicly the government and the bureaucracy pretend to remain at arms distance. Privately their actions are suggestive of maladroit attempts to manage a way around the expiration of the Permit.

I’m looking down the Tamar Valley from my Balfour perch. It is the morning of the 18th of September. The roofs of houses that John Batman knew, lie before me, just as he might have seen them, glinting in the light of spring. Beyond the Bunya Pine, is Princes Square. On this same corner of Charles St, some weeks ago, I saw a man, quietly dressed, make his way down Canning across Charles. He just looked like any forlorn middle-aged guy, nice cotton shirt, shaved, at the wheel of a 4WD in good condition. He drove gently through the roundabout – he had a little dog by his side. It was on the front seat, front two feet up on the dash below the mirror, close to him. Is he happy, this former Chairman-CEO? And at the same time, how are we? What more can I say? Fill in the dots yourselves … you know who he is, you know the position we still are in, we suspect the government will never relent. And so we remain condemned to struggle on – the pulp mill being our existential hell. It seems we can never be free of its threat.

Princes Square, beyond the Bunya, is a significant area, which recalls the movement for the abolition of convict transportation and the call for self government. There was yesterday an absolutely wonderful, cloud-free sky over Launceston. Sunday morning. As I looked out over this most beautiful town and valley however, I was lost for words when I read our Attorney-General, Brian Wightman’s abrogation of responsibility, encapsulated in his Media Release of the 31st August:

MEDIA RELEASE
31 Aug 2011:

The Attorney-General, Brian Wightman, said he would not intervene in the issue of pulp mill permits. “Independent regulators will decide whether the permits for Gunns’ proposed pulp mill are valid and I do not believe that the public want to see politicians meddling in that process,” Mr Wightman said. He continued: “The Director of the EPA, Alex Schaap, has received a request from Gunns for a minor variation to the storm water management plan on the pulp mill site. This has triggered the process for determining whether Gunns has a valid permit. Mr Schaap has requested the company make a submission explaining why it believes substantial commencement has occurred and he will seek legal advice before making a determination. This is as it should be – proper process, at arm’s length from Government.”

and in

THE WEEKLY TIMES:
31 Aug:

TASMANIA’S Environmental Protection Authority will make a key decision about the validity of permits issued to Gunns’ northern Tasmanian pulp mill.

The EPA permits for the Tamar Valley mill, which were issued on the condition there was “substantial commencement” on the $2.5 billion project by yesterday, may now have expired. EPA director Alex Schaap said today he had been asked to approve a minor variation on a stormwater management plan.

“In order to establish if the permit has lapsed, I will need to determine if substantial commencement has occurred,” Mr Schaap said.

“I have requested that Gunns provide me with a submission setting out the reasons why the company believes substantial commencement has occurred. “I will then take legal advice on the issues raised before making a determination on whether substantial commencement has occurred and hence whether or not the permit has lapsed.”

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings and Attorney-General Brian Wightman have so far declined to intervene in the matter.

TASMANIANS could have an outcome to the seven-year Gunns pulp mill saga within 10 days.
[...]
Now that the Pulp Mill Permit had expired, the Mercury report told us that Alex Schaap as of 31st August was now prepared to try and determine if Gunns had substantially commenced the Project and therefore if permits were still valid. The Mercury wrote that Mr Schaap had noted that the permits to build dams on the site had expired: “That means that the works on stormwater dams cannot continue, and that may well mean that works come to a halt,” he said.

MY COMMENT:

But readers can see with their own eyes that despite Mr Schaap’s words, works on stormwater dams did commence and then continue after the 31 August.

$Give.00

Ladies and gentlemen, if you disagree with such a concerted government ‘look the other way’ and if you think the EPA has assisted Gunns to now begin earthworks in the absence of a permit, and if you have a wallet commensurate with your attitude, you could do worse than contribute to the court action which challenges this governmental avoidance of duty. Support the court action which calls for the prosecution of Gunns, for working on the project site after the Pulp Mill Permit has expired.

“That means that the works on stormwater dams cannot continue, and that may well mean that [all project] works come to a halt,” he said – while not having told Gunns he would stop them continuing… (A. Schaap)

• JOHN HAWKINS: An earlier perspective ...

This important well written letter to Turnbull by Alistair Graham of the TCT contains a principle actionable at this very moment in time despite being 4 years old, I quote:

“ Section 8 of the State Government’s permit states that “Every requirement in a condition of the Pulp Mill Permit is to be read as requiring that the action to which it refers is to be substantially performed…” (our highlighting). “Substantially performed” has not been adequately defined. It therefore appears that the Tasmanian permit conditions do not necessarily place any practical limit on pollution of Bass Strait by effluent from the proposed pulp mill leaving an unhealthy level of discretion in the hands of public servants subject to ministerial influence or direction. Note that this critical weakness is not addressed by the Lennon governments oft-repeated announcement of its intention to create a so-called Environmental Protection Authority – amounting to no more than a cosmetic change to the status quo.”

A situation has now arisen in that Schaap of the EPA has to make a decision independent of Government which can bring down the Pulp Mill, a decision over two words “Substantially Commenced” it is patently obvious to even the school dunce standing in the corner facing the wall wearing his dunce’s hat that building a pulp mill on the Longreach site has not commenced.

Grahams words have come true “…. Leaving an unhealthy level of discretion in the hands of public servants SUBJECT TO MINISTERIAL INFLUENCE OR DIRECTION. Note that this critical weakness is not addressed by the Lennon governments oft-repeated announcement of its intention to create a so-called Environmental Protection Authority – amounting to no more than a cosmetic change to the status quo”.

Which way will Schaap jump, a mill or no mill? That is the question that those breathing down his neck need him to answer.

Isn’t it odd that the people now supposedly want the Government to But Out.
The Government have been involved all the time in pushing this stinking rotten corrupt proposal on the people of Tasmania.
It cost a deputy premier his job,it cost two commissioners of the RPDC their job, it has cost the CEO of the company his job and also thousands of jobs in the industry.
It was always meant to cost thousands of jobs as big companies work on profits. Their best way to make profits is to build a factory that needs hardly any workers.
So now we have had the government pushing the project on us for 7 years, with a pulp mill bus peddling rubbish and a Gunns Dream Bill rammed through parliament in the middle of the night.
Now they say, Oh the people don’t want the government involved.
I suggest that Lala get a technician to look at her washing machine it has been stuck on Spin Cycle for far too long.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 19/09/11 at 08:18 AM

While Gunns are allowed to run the various agendas of the gov’t, by the powers that be, nothing will change. ‘Independent statuatory bodies’ within gov’t are mentioned in the article…I believe there is no such thing. Every person within every dep’t are handpicked by members of parliament to suit their own agendas with corporations and their own greed.

Posted by suspicious mind on 19/09/11 at 12:06 PM

Beautiful scenery, crisp air, crystal water, dewdrops on leaves - these are the sights that cut to the quick every time I see them in front of me, through the window, on TV or in a magazine. The irony is too much for a northern Tasmanian. To think that the government still has the temerity to continue selling tourism on these grounds. Garry Stannus asks, “How are we?” Garry pins down my feelings:

“...We suspect the government will never relent. And so we remain condemned to struggle on – the pulp mill being our existential hell. It seems we can never be free of its threat.”

Posted by Bob Kendra on 19/09/11 at 01:25 PM

The thing is we live here. We know the beauty the Tamar valley has to offer and it is not a pernicious pulp mill.
How many of those peddling this machine are not Tasmanian, not Australian; they do not even hold Australian citizenship?
To those people I say go home, you are not welcome here.
Go exploit and foul up and your own country if you haven’t already.

Gosh the fight hasn’t even started yet. Those opposed to the mill are in the best position for many reasons.
Jump on the happy bus folks and enjoy it. Almost every day Gunns and the government (same thing) provide a bucket of laughs.

Posted by cleanair on 19/09/11 at 03:35 PM

The term “substantial commencement” is a legal term that has apparently never been defined in law.

If it defined by Schaap, it will be an administrative decision that will then be subject to legal challenge. It therefore needs to be defined by a magistrate or judge without any real or perceived bias in a way that is reasonable.

Why don’t they get on with it? Does nobody want to hold this dirty stinking baby?

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 19/09/11 at 05:54 PM

#5 ...‘therein lies the rub’
Who, oh who, wants to be left holding the baby that will immediately be descended upon by ‘victims of abuse’ groups as soon as the baby is produced?
It may well be dismembered in the process..and who wants that blood on their hands..CV..record….

Posted by sanguine on 20/09/11 at 09:44 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.